tv Politics and Public Policy Today CSPAN March 7, 2016 11:00am-1:01pm EST
acquisition terms to changes in the world, but that will remain a central challenge for the next administration. and just one last comment, that in some ways, there is some irony in the fact that one of the biggest conflicts in this whole budget development has been between osd and the navy, because in many ways, i would say the navy has pioneered, as demonstrated by the sm-6, some of this question about adaptability and about leveraging the platforms you have with small investments to get a better return and new capabilities. and so, it may be one of those cases where in some ways, like minds argue more because they get down to the really fine details. but i think those are the two big challenges for the next administration. >> all right. so, mark, you're up next. >> well, thank you. i'll talk a little about forces. and of course, there are many issues on the forces. i'll talk about one overarching theme and then look at some individual issues for the particular services.
the overarching theme i think you're going to hear over the next year or so on forces is whether there is a gap between the strategy and the size of the forces that are planned. the current forced sizing was done in 2013. that was before we saw a very aggressive china in the south china sea, before you have russian aggression in ukraine and then threats to the baltics, now in syria, of course, and the battlefield successes of isis, plus in the background, of course, you have iran and north korea. so, one of the arguments is that the world has changed. the administration's force plans have not changed and a gap has opened up. sometimes you hear this discussion in code words -- posture versus presence, or capacity versus capability. you heard a little of that this morning with our panelists, and i think you heard some of the tension that exists there.
the administration initially took the position that they were going to emphasize posture rather than presence, in other words, we're going to have better stuff rather than more stuff. but they got a lot of pushback on that when the cno, general admiral richardson expressed that in his guidance to the navy. there was a lot of pushback that he hadn't mentioned presence and that this was a major change in what the navy had done and was leaving maybe some of our allies uncovered, so he back-tracked. and i think you saw it in the panel in that -- i think it was mccord's slides, he talks about emphasizing posture rather than presence. but when bashar taught, he said, no, we're emphasizing both of them. so, this tension i think is in the administration, and you'll see it played out on the hill. looking at the individual services, we can start with the army, and this tension plays out in the army. general odierno, the previous chief, had been really quite
outspoken about his concerns that the army was getting to be too small, and you've seen some proposed legislation on the hill to stop the army's drawdown. the active army has come down from like 530 to 490. they're going to 470, i think, this year and the plan next year is to go down to 460, ultimately 450. and there are comparable reductions to the guard and reserve. the legislation would freeze the army drawdown. now, that may not get enacted, but it indicates a concern on the hill and in the congress. the other thing i think you'll see played out in the army is maybe some easing of the civil war within the army in its components. the army, of course, has both the guard and the reserves, as well as the active or regular forces, they're referring to it now. there's been tension there since the beginning of the republic. you can go back to george washington and he complains about the militia. so, the fact that there are
tensions now is nothing new, but it flared up about two years ago when some regular officers had raised questions about the use of particularly guard combat units in the kind of scenarios that they were facing and proposing or suggesting that maybe there would be some cutbacks there. the guard was being very politically connected, pushed back. there was this commission on the future of the army, and they made a number of recommendations to try to integrate the components better and to ease some of the tensions there. many of those will cost money, but if there's more money available, that might help. they had some ideas, for instance, about apaches, where they were particularly sensitive. money can be a great lubricant and ease a lot of tensions, so i think if the congress steps in and provides a little more money for the army, that may ease this civil war. if you look at the navy, of
course, they got a lot of attention when the secretary sent them a memo cutting the lcs program, and that really captured many of these concerns about posture versus presence, lcs being designed to have some war fighting capability, but i think it's fair to say that that has been a disappointment, what it has produced, but it would give you a lot of presence so that sending a, you know, a $700, $800 million ship instead of a $200 million destroyer. the secretary had told them to cut back on that. there's been pushback because of concerns that the navy ship count is getting to be too small for all the places that the navy needs to be. this plays out also with the cruises the navy had proposed, essentially deactivating some cruises. congress has forbidden them from doing that. the other place i think you'll see some issues in the navy is regarding carriers. and shawn talked about that a little with the new class, you know, this unmanned aircraft
that the navy had designed. they decided not to produce it as a production aircraft but to turn it into a tanker called cbars. there's also some interest in calling it stingray. so, i think whatever we're calling it this month, i think it will be the center of a lot of discussion about the carriers because there's been enormous debate about the role of the carriers going forward. clearly, they're very useful in day-to-day operations and continuous sea operations. a lot of questions about their usefulness in a conflict with a peer competitor, for example, one on the eastern edge of the asian mainland. so, i think you'll see that played out because an unmanned aircraft would give the carrier much greater range, as shawn pointed out. right now its air wing is very short-legged, whereas back in the '80s, the air wing used to have a range of about 1,000
miles. now it's down to about 500. and this is at a time when you're getting close to a peer competitor is going to be extremely dangerous. this new class might have bridged that gap. the navy decided it could not buy both the f-35 and this unmanned aircraft and decided to go with the short-ranged f-35. looking at some of the other services -- the air force. i think you're seeing this played out again. centers around the a-10. there's, of course, a lot of active reserve politics around that, but part of the issue is what do you want the air force to be able to do? if you want it to be able to penetrate very sophisticated air defenses against peer competitors, a-10 can't do that for you. it's much too vulnerable. you need to move to the f-35 and fifth-generation aircraft. on the other hand, if you want to drop bombs on insurgents or environments with a less sophisticated air defense network, like north korea, a-10 can be great because it's designed for exactly that kind
of purpose. the air force had wanted to retire the fleet. the congress has required them to keep them active. and you'll see the dynamics of capacity and ability played out there in the air force. finally, you've got the marine corps. i think one of the things you're seeing that the marine corps on its amphibious ships, it's a lot of innovation in the way that they use ships and they organize themselves. traditionally, the marine corps, of course, had put units on amphibious ships and deployed those around the globe. now they're using nonamphibious shi shi ships, some of the logistics ships, the afsbs in innovative ways. they also created some special-purpose ones to meet purposes around the globe that are not necessarily tied to amphibious ships. so, i think you'll see more of
that as the marine corps both tries to maintain a strong amphibious ship under the classic l-class, but also take advantage of some of these other capabilities to meet the many demands that are being put on them where regular amphibious ships are not available. so, with that, i'll turn it over to you. >> great, thank you very much. so, i think you've heard many of the topics, and i would just, you know, add my -- absolutely, i think with forced sizing and forced structure, you're already seeing a lot of conversation on capitol hill. we had a couple witnesses just recently asked, you know, what would it take? and the price tag is $30 to $50 billion. so, obviously, this is a great, outstanding question, and so, more to come. if we're living under a cr this year, obviously, that's not going to happen, but with an incoming administration, that will get relitigated in my
judgment. i agree with mark. again, on our naval forces, the ship count is always an issue, but i think a lot of concern around the 280 right now. we had some discussion about the carrier, an additional carrier. those are all huge items, big-ticket items. we touched on the nuclear modernization. we have not touched on space. there was a big ad last year recently on space. they've put another $1.8 billion for space launch in, but i think that's an area of future consideration, depending upon how our constellations hold up and what needs to be done there. we talked about cyber. so, i completely agree with the panel here, and i will add that andrew is very familiar with the gamesmanship that goes on.
and if you look at the appropriations structure, it conveniently is minus six to the procurement accounts, plus six to the o&m accounts, so a little bit of standard gamesmanship going on there. so, i think those are the big-ticket items, areas of reform that are a question mark currently and for this congress are will the congress take on the next step? they took on military retirement last year. will they take a next step on health care reform? if you're -- the administration is counting about $3 billion worth of savings for their health care proposals this year. that depends on what the congress does with it. they have attempted to simplify the tricare health care structure. but again, their assumptions and proposals are going to be looked at, i'm sure, very carefully by
both committees, particularly in a political year. and again, if we end up under a cr, that is something that will probably get kicked to the next administration. so, that's kind of my list of the force of the future. i know there's been a lot of talk around that, what that actually results in, in terms of savings. i think mike suggested it wasn't going to be much, and i know that many of you track the hearings. i think they've been kind of hit with a particular thud in one senate armed services committee. so, who knows what will happen on that. the relationships roger talked about, and about the broader context in the budget committees -- are we plussing $30 billion up, or are we going to reduce -- you know, it's the hawks against -- the defense hawks against the deficit hawks. so, who knows how that will all turn out, but those are my lists. and i would say i'm not -- well,
i think the acquisition reform proposals last year were good, the question in my mind is how will the defense department make use of those proposals? are they going to be innovative? and in the last year of an administration, people are tackling many issues, and it may not get full use, but i would defer to andrew. he is the expert there. >> all right, thank you all. so, i'll go right to questions from the audience. if you've got a question, put up your hand, we'll bring around a microphone to you. we've got one up here. >> st. clair retired sailor, but this is not a naval question. it's more of a joint question and is one that i guess the survey is going to be interesting to see what the results are for that. so, we're talking about joint force reform. and i've been a joint staff officer twice in my time. where do each of you think this needs to go in terms of a
revised goldwater nickel? are we talking about specifically whatever savings we might reap from northcom and southcom or africom being reunited as one? are we talking about greater ambitions in terms of reducing the number of flag and general officers because of the way we're connected now? where do you think this joint force conversation goldwaters nichols two will go and if you get there, how much do you think you're actually going to save over? >> mark, do you want to start on that? >> i'm just going to start, because it's a great introduction to our panel next week. csis put out some analysis on all of the testimony that has been produced by the sasc on this question, and i recommend you take a look at that, because the bottom line that comes out is that there's a lot of concern
about the agility of the department, including staff, to make strategic decisions, but there's really no consensus about how to bring that about. there are proposals to merge northcom and southcom, maybe put africom back into eucom, but there are also proposals to create new cocoms for cyber and space and others that propose taking the focus off of africom or southcom, and the same way with the joint staff, proposals to increase its reach, proposals to decrease its reach. so, bottom line, i think there's a lot of interest in improving strategy formulation but no real consensus about how to do that across the board or with the joint staff. roger? >> real quick. i've seen this through what outcome we're trying to achieve.
one is we just need to have, looking at the force, more people on the tip of the sphere, the fighting force. there's too much kind of back end. so, that's one outcome. i know they're emphasizing. methodology of how to get there and an agreement of who's not and who is doing something to bend the sphere is philosophical and not widespread agreement. then there's a cost component. i'm mindful of secretary gates, we're just going to get rid of jefcom, right? that was just waste or unnecessary and we'll get rid of it, and all of a sudden, you saw jefcom hanging out in the joint staff and there wasn't any cost savings or anything to show from it. even secretary gates, when he shows the growth of officers, and even though the commands under them have been removed or reduced, you're going, well, maybe he doesn't require four-star. i believe he achieved 10% of his goal. all right, the secretary of defense who just published a book on management, how to deal with bureaucracy and achieve
outcomes essentially wasn't even close to accomplishing his goal on it. so, broad notion is what we want to see. the challenges are how to execute it, and i don't think anybody has figured out how to do it. mark me down as skeptical until we get there. >> is my microphone on? thank you. for me, i think the question is, what is the problem you're trying to solve, right? i think -- and i haven't quite seen that from anybody thinking about this, which i think is somewhat problematic. they're still trying to figure out exactly what problem exists and they're focusing on as they're thinking about marking up legislation, i think, inside of the next two months. so, it's a pretty sporty dynamic, uncertain dynamic. and i think it's important to remember, look, the original gold water/nichols legislation was about getting jointness forward. and i think it's fair to say, you know, 30 years after the fact, that that has been achieved. i think where there's room for debate is how that legislation
has impacted the question of jointness in terms of inside the beltway, inside the pentagon services, joint staff, osd. and i think there the focus ought to be on, you know, how do we make sure that jointness forward doesn't necessarily come at the cost of the competition of ideas inside the pentagon. and i think that's where you see a lot of debate right now. the joint staff sat 4,000 billets, osds at 5,000 billets. these are orders of magnitude greater than they were 30 years ago, and i don't even know where the services are, and you've got combatant commands as well, and i think that's an issue area sort of ripe for examination. the secretary was on the efficiencies task force in the early years of the obama administration, or supporting it, as secretary gates took a look at this, made some progress, but there's so much more that can be done. so, my sort of advice to those folks on the hill would be to look inside the question of what
we call the fourth estate inside the pentagon. and there i think there are lots of interesting things you could do, but i think it's important, the first proposition ought to be do no harm. some of this debate i'm seeing about the role of the chairman and authorities, vis-a-vis the colcoms, i think we have to be careful to really game out the second and third-order effects of what i would call relatively galactic changes in how bethink about the command structure. there are lots of things you could do that are relatively low-hanging fruit that i think you could look at, but i worry a little bit about this sort of push for rapid legislation that could be looking at some of these, you know, relatively, what i would think as relatively effective command relationships between the chairman and the secretary, the president and all the way down with the combatant commands. i worry a little bit about some of the things that i'm hearing and how quickly you could potentially reset some of those relationships to address a problem statement that i'm not quite sure really is shared
among the folks looking at the issue. >> andrew. >> i always say, my habit is to be the optimist. let me be the pessimist for a moment here, because i think it's not just that the objectives are unclear. i think it's that people have expressed objectives that are actually intention with one another as if they were complimentary. and i think there is an important respect at which they aren't. so, i think efficiency is a very worthwhile and valuable objective that has been put forward by many as a possible objective for this goldwater/nichols 2.0 effort. you've also had folks who talk about the incredibly complex, strategic environment they're in, which we spent most of the morning talking about, and that the need is to be more agile and adaptive in responding to that. and i do believe that there isn't an important respect in which those two things are intention with one another. if you think about the first goldwater/nichols, where the focus was on improving joint war
fighting, it took a lot of extra resources to really focus on that. you created new structures in the joint staff, new structures in the combatant commands to achieve that objective. we made new investments in interoperability and weapons systems to achieve those objectives. and it was, i think probably would not have been as successful as it has been if the focus had been, and we're going to do all that for less money, you know, than what we had done before. so, i think there is -- you know, i think of the successes that we have had in being agile and adaptive -- the european reassurance initiative is a case where we were able to respond. we were caught flat-footed, but to the extent that we have responded, we've responded largely by, let me just say, throwing money at the problem. sometimes throwing money at the problem is the right answer. so, i just think that as we go through this debate about goldwater/nichols 2, you know, if it's all about efficiencies across the board, then i think some of the problems that have
been identified about being more agile, adaptive and strategically relevant will become second priorities, second bananas. and so, i think we just have to be very clear-minded in what the real thrust of this is. >> all right, next question here. >> yeah, thanks. my name's jim byrne. i'm a retired journalist who covered procurement issues in all of the federal agencies through many years. and i just picked up this morning the current issue of "the washington examiner" magazine, and they have a story here, and you talk about it just now -- fixing a national security crisis. and then it quotes mccain as saying, "the military's technological advantage is eroding and eroding fast, precisely at the time the world's on fire." and then it's most of the time discussing some of the issues you brought up here about how
complicate complicat complicated, and mccain's attempt is to upgrade or modernize the goldwater reforms of 25 years ago. so, i'm wondering, "a," do you think that quote of mccain's is on the money or a little extreme? and what is the outlook for getting something out of this effort to upgrade, you know, the goldwater reform? >> all right. what wants to take a shot? who wants to grade mccain's statements? i'll answer his question. i'm not sure it was a grading of senator mccain. mccain generally, you know, kind of evokes the attention of journalists, and mostly it's because of quotes like that. i think there is an element of truth to it, each if there is some hyperbole there. but we are in a vicious cycle. you have the middle east and the challenges, the low-end threats that continue to mount, a
tremendous strain on our military. it is not going away in the foreseeable future. at the same time, you have the stuff that folks on this panel and the last panel were talking about, the investments that russia and china have made that is exploiting our vulnerabilities and exposes the fact that we haven't really invested in modernization since, you know, the period that ronald reagan was in office. we can live in the fiction like we did the beginning of this administration and the previous administration before him, that those issues aren't a problem for us, right? we're just going to kind of -- we're not really concerned about russia, we can kind of rely on our economic relationship with the chinese and we're just going to withdraw from the wars in iraq and afghanistan, and you know, we'll be okay. actually, with less of an investment. and kind of reality set in. and on both accounts, we have a significant challenge. in that respect, senator mccain i think is spot on. the notion that, somehow, you needed goldwater/nichols to get
there, too -- you know, i think there are a number of things we have to do first, and i think we could do a lot to get after the challenges posed by china and russia and the threat posed by isis without getting to goldwater/nichols. my concern is, relevant, important thing to do, but i think some of the resource issues as well as just getting after some of the planning and focus on war fighting as opposed to, you know, managing, you know, budget control acts from year to year. it would go a long way to stabilizing our security. >> all right. right here? next question. >> thank you. john harper with "national defense" magazine. this two-year budget agreement was supposed to bring some stability to the dod budget, but the panel has raised the possibility of having another cr. so, i was just hoping each of you could weigh in and talk about, you know, what you think the odds are that the fy '17 budget will be passed before the
end of the fy '16, or whether you think there will, in fact,o be a cr. thanks. >> i think it's safe to say we'll start the year on a continuing resolution, because there's a long track record of doing that with not too many exceptions. although i think, tina, when you were in dod, there might have been a couple of years where -- >> yeah, i think we had a couple regular years, yeah. but we had to manage the cash problem as well. >> so, you know, given that it may be a foregone conclusion that we start the year on a cr, what is the impact this year? what do you see coming down the line? and i mean, acquisition programs are a good place to start. >> yeah, i'd be happy to start. so, acquisitions, crs are particularly problematic for acquisition in a couple of ways. one is they tend to put a lot of things on hold. so, anything that was new, new starts or new, dramatic expansions, programs transitioning into production, all of that essentially is put on hold during the duration of a cr.
it depends a little bit on the length of a cr. a lot of those types of things tend not to happen in the first quarter of the fiscal year anyway. that's, you know, that's maybe a little bit of an overstatement, but generally, the way omb rolls the money down the pike, you know, they apportion it to the department and it takes weeks to months to kind of really get programs teed up to get to that next stage after the budget's passed. if it's a three-month cr, i think the impacts are real but fairly minor. when you start talking about a six-month cr, which we've certainly experienced in recent years, then it becomes incredibly disruptive, because it's almost like, you know, that extra three months is almost like losing most of the year because it puts you so far behind the eight ball of getting those contracts let and getting activities started. so, it's one of those rare cases. it's also particularly hard, as i mentioned in the past, for the acquisition system, because it's a multiyear planning exercise. when you're working on an acquisition program, you've got a 30-year plan for how that
program's going to roll out. and certainly, when you're in the early stages, you know, it's at least a ten-year time horizon that you're trying to plan for. so, when you get these, you know, potentially year-long disruptions that come seemingly at random, it really undermines the effectiveness of the system. >> quick comment. just taking it back. so, the three months or six months is certainly true, and i think anybody who manages the money in dod would agree with that. i think the opportunity -- and this is where i'll be half glass full -- is with a presidential election. we haven't had a structural change in the politics as delivered us the budget control act and sequestration since that was enacted. some thought with republicans controlling majorities in both the house and the senate, you might actually see a different outcome. i think the reason you have this reach the 60-vote threshold. if you're looking this through the lens of the department of defense, they need a new political reality. they need a president, new
president that they'll get in one form or another, and some shift in the congress. the senate's in play. depending on who the republican nominee is, and a lot of people feel the house is in play. and that will allow in the same way john boehner left and paul ryan came in and they got the bipartisan budget act, right -- it ends up just being a one-year deal because the freedom caucus came back in and kind of wanted to renegotiate again. i mean, that conduct will potentially end with a new president in place. of course, it's really -- what we haven't discussed today -- really, we're in this world, and it's 50% discretionary but really 70% of total spending -- the forces that have driven us to this budget constraint discussion are things that happened outside of the department of defense. so, the question is, when you have a new administration, will that president basically have support in congress to say, we're not going to do overhaul of medicare and social security, kind of the entitle programs because i'm comfortable where the economy is just to lift
discretionary spending, or in the case of a republican administration, will actually put their money where their mouth is, and we'll actually see some movement on the drivers of the deficit, the drivers of the spending. and this is something republicans have been very poor on. they have not shown the ability to actually even move legislation. i mean, paul ryan wants to do this. that actually hints to what the republicans may do if they were to be in the white house in 2017. that is what has to happen. otherwise, we'll be having the same conversation six to nine months from now. >> so, let me follow up quickly. so, one of the debates going on now with the house and budget committee is, well, the defense folks want to add more for defense. well, the way you would do that under this budget deal is to add more oco. there's nothing limiting, there's not an enforcement -- >> well, despite what mike said -- >> well, there is no mechanism to limit oco in the budget deal. >> i agree with you. >> it did say $59 billion for
defense. so, if you want to add another $18 billion or so i think has been talked about, in oco, the problem is in the house republican caucus right now, that some of the freedom caucus folks are saying that they won't go along with it. so, the strategy has been floated that maybe you wait and have an additional oco request in the next administration. so, you basically punt on oco and wait until a new administration and a new congress takes office and then try to take up a higher oco level of funding then. what do people think about that? what are the odds of success? it's very uncertain what would happen because it depends on the election. >> i mean, the trick here is whether -- just if i can go back to the cr -- the crs are costly, but the trick here is timing. how long -- what's the risk of the wait? in a transition year, despite, you know, whoever comes in, whatever party comes in, there
is always a period of time, sometimes very substantial, to do a relook. i think during the bush administration, there was actually pretty quick action to increase the defense budget, but there is a huge risk. so, of course, that could be a strategy, but timing on it, who comes in, what the contents of it are, constraints, those are all risks. so, i would -- you know, i'm sure the defense department would really want to get this taken care of as soon as they can within a year. >> just to flip it back, this is a strategy, this notion of somehow we're going to rely on the next president to come in. it basically means the defense talks in the congress can't prevail. that's how you have to read it. it's basically they're submitting to one of two things, right? that they just want to put kind of fidelity to paul ryan, help that guy out and not create another headache for them, or they know they can't defeat the
freedom caucus. what it doesn't mean is somehow they've made, you know, kind of -- no, actually, things are okay and we don't require more investment and resources. so, everybody expects the next administration to come in and tinker with what the previous administration has left them. the way we are thinking about, you know, the case of the gop hawks, defense hawks in the house, is they are going to say, okay, let's go ahead and give them, you know, a bump so the baseline now is $20 million higher than they would have otherwise received when the next administration came in. and so, in that respect, you know, punting it down to the next administration means they really haven't done anything to advance and set the table, as i mentioned before, for the next administration. and listen, you know, i started out talking about spoilers. the freedom caucus, you know, can't go ahead and do anything to effectuate their budget priorities. they can only bring down paul ryan's. and the question is whether or not defense hawks are able to do anything other than to stop a budget, or will they be able to
add resources? and again, we're just talking about a blueprint, because none of it will be executed, anyway, but it actually helps the next administration, if they're so inclined, to point to that budget blueprint and say, hey, that's the direction we want to go. andrew? >> yeah, todd, i would say -- i'm a notorious fan of oco, and i'm not going to depart from that position because i think it's been tremendously valuable. and certainly on this issue of adaptability and agility. but having said that, it does have a down side, and the down side is you can't -- and as you've pointed out -- it's not predictable on the future. and so, if oco is the answer, but it's the answer this year and next year we fall off the cliff again, you're really no better off than you were. so, that's one point. the other point i would make is i think -- and roger has really said it -- i think it's not so much about the identity of the next president or even that there is a next president. it doesn't answer anything, because the problem is still the caps, which are statutory. and if the congress is
struggling this year to even deal with a cap that has been agreed upon and to, you know, what about those caps that nobody likes that are still in place in fy '18 and '19 and going forward? so, that's the crucial -- and it is, as roger said, it's all about other than defense discretionary. it's about non-defense discretionary, it's about mandatory spending. that's where the solution will be found that will eventually feed back into the defense accounts. >> mark, a final comment. >> let me put my omb hat on, which makes me a little nervous, as i'm flanked by comptrollers. >> i was at omb. >> okay, all right. i get some support there. the first thing is on the cr. keep in mind that because the '17 levels are essentially the same as the '16 levels, you don't have this problem about a big jump, so the amounts aren't that big a deal. there is a problem about authorities that for a short period isn't that big a deal, but when you start going six
months or more, then that becomes a big deal. on the question of oco, and my observation coming from omb is that last year they added -- they proposed -- the budget committees proposed to add $38 billion to oco, and that passed the congress. now, the administration wouldn't accept it, but it strikes me that if they tried to add some smaller amounts, you know, $18 billion, what not, that that might make it through the congress. maybe the administration won't accept it, but that might be the marker that they put down. and you're nodding. i have to defer to people who know that a little bit better, but just based on what they did last year, that might be an approach. >> is the only place to add resources, it's just the bottom line. all right, i want to thank all of our panelists for joining us and being so generous with your time, and thank you all for coming.
monaco will be talking about u.s. strategy for combating isis at the council on foreign relations. we'll have that live in just under an hour. and then more of c-span's "road to the white house" coverage today with two events. at 2:30 eastern, senator bernie sanders will be campaigning in dearborn, michigan, ahead of the democratic primary tomorrow live over on c-span. and then hillary clinton will be in detroit holding a rally. live coverage also on c-span tonight at 7:45 eastern time. michigan has 147 democratic delegates at stake allocated proportionally to the candidate percent of the popular vote. the hill reports hillary clinton with a 17-point lead over senator sanders. that's according to a new nbc/"wall street journal" marist poll. secretary clinton leading senator sanders 57%-40% among likely democratic voters. you can read more at thehill.com. c-span's coverage of the primary contests continues tomorrow in michigan and mississippi with a total of 99 republican and 188
democratic delegates at stake. we'll have the results, candidates' speeches, and we'll take your calls live starting at 8:00 p.m. eastern over on c-span2. i'm a teacher, so the most important thing to me right now as an issue in this election is education. and so, i'm looking at the candidates very closely for their programs in education. i'm not happy in the last 15 years or so with all the core standards and the common core that's been happening, and so, i'd like to see that changing around. so, i'm going to vote for either bernie sanders or hillary clinton. i'm happy with both of those choices, and i'm interested to see what their education plans would actually turn out to be, if elected. >> i've decided that i'm voting for ted cruz for the candidacy because he is a constitutional scholar, he is eloquent and he is principled, consistently out of all the candidates so far.
germany's foreign minister spoke last week about relations with other countries focusing on germany's role taking in refugees. the iran nuclear deal, and the future of germany's relationship with the united states. the discussion was hosted at george washington university in washington, d.c. >> good morning. my name is nelson carbonell, and i serve as the chairman of the george washington university board of trustees. it is my pleasure today to welcome the german minister of foreign affairs, frank-walter ste steinmeier to george washington university. i would also like to welcome german ambassador peter vitig as well. we are honored to have mr. steinmeier join us today for what i understand is his only university appearance during his trip to the united states.
i should also note that minister steinmeier is the highest ranking german official ever to speak at gw. we are incredibly grateful for his time today. minister steinmeier was born and raised in part of the former west germany. he studied law and political science at the university of geisen. minister steinmeier has a very long and illustrious political career. he has long been a member of germany's social democratic party. and from 2009 to 2013, he served as the chair of the party's parliamentary group in the german bundestag. he has served twice as foreign minister, first in chancellor angela merkel's first-term cabinet from 2005 to 2008, and most recently since 2013. minister steinmeier has played a
central role in negotiations within the eu, within nato, with russia and ukraine and in the july 2015 nuclear deal with iran. in an ever-complicated world, strong u.s./german relations are critical in addressing many of the world's greatest challenges. we look forward to minister steinmeier's illuminating assessment of the importance of our strong transatlantic partnership. please join me in welcoming german minister foreign affairs frank-walter steinmeier. [ applause ] >> mr. carbonell, professor harrison, dear students of the school, i am well aware that on this day few people in d.c. are
looking across the atlantic. today most are looking in the other direction to alabama, to arkansas, to tennessee or to texas. first of all, thanks for coming, even though i'm going to talk about foreign policy and not about super tuesday. in germany, we do not have super tuesday. we imported many things from the u.s. that start with super -- supermarkets, superman, and especially for hot summer days, the supersoaker. but our tuesday, they are just average tuesdays. the field i will talk about today isn't looking stupid in any sense of the world -- foreign policy. syria, iraq, libya, ukraine. the risk of failing of the
states, the counter of terrorism, the so-called islamic state. can any one of you recall a time in which we were facing as many, as dangerous, as complex crises as today? i cannot, either, and i'm afraid i have a few more years to recall than most of you. what's more, none of these crises is far away. however much we may prefer that, none of these crises is just some terrifying news item that you read about online. for us in germany, for instance, these crises are present in our very midst, in our towns, in our schools, in our emergency shelters. in the past year alone, over 1 million people have come to
germany as refugees from the conflict regions, about half of them from syria. over 1 million to a country of about 80 million. the united nations tell us that right now there are more people in the world who have lost their homes due to the conflict and violence than at any time since the second world war, the great as fee of the 20th century. how do we react to this? what does it do to us? i didn't start off with super tuesday just to tell a joke. i started off with super tuesday because if you talk about foreign policy today, you need to look at domestic politics first. effective foreign policy in our
western democracies relies on public support, on broad, bipartisan consensus, and a large degree of continuity. and to be honest, i'm worried about that. in germany and in europe, something is gaining momentum in our domestic politics, and to be honest, i'm also seeing it here in the united states during the primary campaigns. it's the politics of fear. don't get me wrong, fear is an important human reflex, and these crises are indeed dangerous. fear is an important indicator, but fear is a terrible adviser in politics just as in all parts of life. the only thing we have to fear
it fear itself. you have heard this quote a million times. so, i'm not actually going to quote this one, but i'm going to quote the sentence that comes right after it. and who of you knows that one? any fdr nerds here? in the following sentence, roosevelt says that, i quote, fear paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance. and that is the key, we need to advance instead of retreat. we need to go out there, we need to engage, we need to address the roots of the conflicts, and we need to do it together as allies and partners, especially across the atlantic. the politicians of fear do the
opposite. in europe just like here. they call for retreat. they pretend that we can't seal ourselves off and leave the the world outside to deal with its own problems. but that's wrong. the world you live in is much too interconnected. in fact, it's better that way. my country, germany, has benefitted like no other country from openness, from open borders, open markets and free movement in europe. so the worse thing we could do is to seal ourselves off. and i think it's not much different from the united states, the leader in trade and communication, innovation worldwide. so if you ask me, building walls is a very better deal, no matter who pays for them.
let's guard against those politics of fear. they are bad for the world and in the end they will also be bad for our transatlantic relations, but what's the alternative? one might say the politics of hope. i know that term sounds familiar from earlier presidential campaigns, but i'm not going to use it because in foreign policy hope mostly doesn't get you very far. in foreign policy, what you need above all is perseverance. perseverance, even in hopeless situations, perseverance because there are no quick and no simple solutions to any of these crises. let me give you an example, last
summer we reached an agreement with iran. it was really a breakthrough agreement not only because it makes sure that iran will not get hold of a nuclear weapon, but also because it allows iran to follow a new path, a path towards openness and towards a more responsible role in the security of the middle east. some in the u.s. have criticized the agreement. i agree it's not perfect. it's not the best conceivable solution to the nuclear threat, but it is the best possible solution. and do you know how long it took? 12 years of negotiation. imagine this at your own university. you have signed yourself up for a really tough seminar, seminar ranging from politics to nuclear
physics, but when you show up to the first class it turns out you got all the most complicated classmates of your entire school in this seminar, classmates as complicated and come petable as russia and europe and the u.s. and china and iran all in the same classroom. and now imagine that seminar is going on for 12 years. that is the iran deal for you. and it does give me hope that diplomacy can bridge even the deepest of rifts. i'll take another case of perseverance. all through the cold war when the iron curtain ran right through the middle of my country, the united states stood guard in western germany. imagine your grandfathers who might have been servicemen
around that time. imagine in the year 1955 they had looked at their watch and said, oh, wow. it's been ten years already. enough to this. let's pack up and go. nobody back then, not even in the '60s or '70s knew that it would all be over in 1990 and yet your grandfathers and your fathers stayed, for 55 years. and if they hadn't stayed, i wouldn't be living in a unified, free and strong germany today. those are students, those are the fruits of perseverance. after 1990, after the end of the cold war, many of us hoped that things would be easier now. there was a famous best seller
in those days called the end of history. after all, the western liberal democracies had proven their superiority once and for all, so we hoped that somehow history wouldn't be as hard again. what a naive hope. of course, history is still hard on us. now it is throwing new types of conflict at us, not just conflicts of states against states but more often states against non-state actors. conflicts wrapped up in layers and layers of interests and ambitions of competing neighbors, conflicts that drive state or international order to the brink of collapse. all this is happening right now in the terrible suffering in
syria. and again, students, we can't just hope for these crises to go away. i'm afraid they are here to stay. in fact, while we normally use the word crisis to mean an exception, i think crisis is about to become the new normal. in foreign policy, any way, hopefully not at home. but do you know what my colleague, john kerry, said two weeks ago when we met in munich in the security conference, he said this moment is not as overwhelming as people think it is. we know what needs to be done. and most importantly we have the power to do it. in spite of all my gloomy analysis, i agree with john. i believe we have every reason to be confident. confident not out of thin air
but confident because we mastered even greater challenges in the past. and most importantly because we have learned from them. that's why i said in munich now that history throwing new challenges at us, let us not go through the pains of the old one again. the world has moved on for better and for worse. and we have moved on, too. we have learned from the past and we have developed precious institutions and instruments in response. let me give you a very few examples. after centuries of violent strife, europe has created the european union, to live together in peace and cooperation today as all the crisis from euro to
brexit are putting europe under pressure, do we really want to give up this lesson? do we really want to risk falling back into the pain of the past? i hope not. second example, after two world wars, the world has given itself rules and institutions. rules and institutions to protect the peace and safety of all people, the united nations for instance, and the universal declaration of human rights. just some weeks ago the world showed that it still knows how to use these institutions. 190 states signed an agreement in paris to fight the most far reaching, long-term crisis we all face, the challenge of
climate change. third example, after centuries of power politics, the west created an alliance that transcends the old logic of might makes right. nato protects the tearer to yal integrity of all its members big or small or as the three musketeers would say, one for all, and all for one. today as some countries are falling back into 19th century power politics, we must stand up to nato's vision. we will reaffirm our vision and unity at the wall, to resolve our to defend each other against any aggression while offering dialogue to overcome conflict and hopefully renew trust. as the fourth example, take your
own historical experience. it took a painful civil war that almost tore this country apart for the states to learn the importance of national unity. you learned under great sacrifices that a house divided cannot stand. and now 150 years after the civil war, it is important to apply this lesson to the conflicts of today. nation states are under pressure. fragile and failing states are a bigger threat in our age than interstate conflicts. that's true all across the middle east and also in northern africa. i don't think any conflict, including syria, would be easier to solve if we just redrew the maps and changing state lines.
instead, my country invests great resources and energy in the stabilization of fragile states from mali to iraq. my last example goes back to the cold war. you know, when i was your age, i was also at university, but my university was just a few dozen miles away from the iron curtain. the line in those days dividing my country and the entire world. i remember the pain of division. and that's why i said in munich we are not back in the cold war and we shouldn't talk ourselves into it. instead let's look at what we have learned. we have an institution called, for instance, the organization for security incorporation in europe that not only helped us
to overcome the cold war but that can still help us to solve the conflicts of today. take the ukrainian crisis. without the courageous men and women of the ose special monitoring mission, we wouldn't have been able to conclude the agreements. ened even though mince is not a perfect solution and there is still much to do on both sides to implement mince, we would be in a much worse place without it. because we believe in the importance of the osce at this time of crisis, germany has taken on the osce chairmanship for this year. part of that leadership, ladies and gentlemen, students, part of that leadership would be our continued dialogue with russia. and do you know why?
because for good or for ill, russia isn't reality. we cannot ignore it. it has influence in the middle east and syria and europe and beyond. so, if we want to achieve solutions, we need to engage with russia even if it's hard, and it's very hard in these days. okay. i realize, although i have white hair and glasses, that's not why i like to talk about history today. i just believe we need to remind ourselves of the lessons that our fathers and grandfathers learned of the tools and institutions they created. you can put these tools to work now on your generations challenges. that's why i'm confident.
so, what do i said again the politics of fear? my answer is perseverance, confidence and thirdly cooperation. the united states cannot solve the world's problems alone, and either can the world solve them without the u.s. we need to cooperate and we have cooperated for seven decades. in doing so, we have built the strongest alliance that either of us has ever had. the transatlantic alliance. it's strong in terms of security. it's strong in terms of economy. and it's even strong in terms of culture. hollywood loves berlin, so much that according to season five of the series, berlin is now part of "homeland." speaking of another long-awaited
series maybe in season four, claire underwood would want to be ambassador to berlin is so fashionable, but no spoilers today. coming back, students, to the real world, the transatlantic alliance is also strong in the everyday cooperation between our government. i4íf think our governments tod are closer, both in our basic ideas and our daily work on foreign policy than i can ever remember. and you can't overestimate how important that is in these times of global turmoil. the closeness of our cooperation sometimes shows itself in unexpected ways. two weeks ago after long day of panels, speeches, bilateral and multilateral meetings at the munich conference, your secretary of state, kerry and i
spontaneously spent three hours in the parlor beer hall. after a while, our entire staff joined in and they stayed even longer. so, the next morning they weren't looking very good but they said to us, president kennedy once said united there is little we cannot do, and last night we found new meaning in that. so i see some of you are just excited for the diplomatic service. when i talk about cooperation, dear students, to solve the current crisis, then we need others, too. the united states and europe cannot shoulder responsibility for peace and security alone. every strong nation bares part of that responsibility. take the case of syria. when people talk about that
conflict, they talk about syria for sure but also about iran and saudi arabia. and turkey and russia. they take -- they talk about their national interests and ambitions, about rivalries and fears. and that is real and it is relevant. but i suggest that we measure a country's true strengths not by these things but by its willingness and ability to assume responsibility not only for its own security but also beyond its own borders. with the international syria support group, we have a group where all nations have a stake in syria sit together at the same table. two weeks ago every member of that group renewed their commitments to a shared responsibility in syria. the munich commitments are
clear. they are clear about humanitarian access. they are clear about the reduction of violence and the cease fire and they are clear about political humanitarian military coordination. so what counts now is that we all live up to the implementation of these commitments. every hour, every hour that the current cease fire holds is an important part of that. most of all, for the people suffering in syria since five years. perseverance, cooperation, responsibility, it's a long list, but while we try to do all that, let's not get overwhelmed by the magnitude of crises. let's take one step before the other. let's be pragmatic. in my mind, pragmatism includes not inflating and exaggerating
everything that we do politically. take the example of germany's refugee policy, for instance. our refugee policy is neither germany's moral perfection nor germany's down fall. giving shelter to victims of war violence and persecution is simply a humanitarian duty, not more, not less. and by the way, the humanitarian duty is enshrined not only in germany's basic law but also in the european treaties and in the geneva refugee convention which 146 other countries, besides germany, have signed. i know this a controversial issue over here, but the united states is known around the world as a melting pot, as a nation
that welcomes immigrants and gives refuge to those who need it. so i hope we will work together pragmatically to imagine displacement and migration today. the number of refugees has to be reduced, but regarding the middle east and the main sources for the migration dynamics for instance in the last year, we will only be successful if we are tackling the root causes of migration. and deescalating the syrian conflict therefore and that is the reason why we are so much concentrated on this de-escalation process. if you are thinking this pragmatism is so typically german of him, that's not entirely true. the founding fathers of this
great nation were not only powerful leaders and visionary statesmen, but they were also pretty pragmatic and practical people. george washington not only won the revolutionary war and was the first president of this nation, but he was also a farmer who invented the seven-year crop rotation. thomas jefferson not only wrote the declaration of independence and ensured the separation of church and state, but he also got up every morning to check on his 250 varieties of vegetables and noted down every detail of their progress in his notebooks. i by contrast can just about make a pancake, but that's not my point. my point is we don't have to retreat into politics of fear. we have every reason to be
confident in our ability to change the world for the better. we know that in times of crisis every practical step counts, even if for every two steps forward there will also be a step back. we know that in times of uncertainty we can build on institutions that our ancestors gave us after a violence history. we know that in times of changing global order we can shape the new order just as those founding fathers did. and we know that in times of shifting global weights, we should deepen our confident alliance across the atlantic. many thanks. [ applause ].
>> thank you so much, mr. steinmeier for that wonderful, beautiful, inspiring speech. my name is hope harris, i'm the associate dean for research at the elliott school of international affairs. i'm an associate professor at history and international affair. i am a long-time scholar of germany, a lover of berlin, so it is a particular delight for me and an honor to welcome you here to gw and to the elliott school. and you talked about the perseverance of the cold war. i must tell you that my father was one of those americans who was based in west germany during the cold war. in fact, during the korean war from 1950 to '53 in darm stat when he and many in west germany were afraid that the north
korean attack on south korea might be mimicked with a east german soviet attack on west germany, so perseverance and lessons from the cold war i think are very important. thank you for sharing that. the elliott school dates back to 1898. we're the largest school of foreign affairs in the united states. we have students from all over the world, including germany. and we have students who are very active, including students who are working with syrian refugees. so, after i begin with the first question with foreign minister steinmeier, i'm going to open it up to all of you, especially to students. you'll have your chance to ask a question of the foreign minister, so you can be preparing that. the dean of the elliott school is traveling in europe this week and is so sorry that he can't be
here. so, going back to history, my question has to do with the weight of german history and particularly the nazi past and whether you feel in foreign policy that there is still this weight of the past, or whether 71 years after the end of world war ii and the demise of the nazi regime, whether germany is free from that weight of the past or not. >> if you allow, i will switch to german? >> so you may put on your headsets if you need to. [ speaking in german ]
>> translator: she said there is no full stop in foreign politics, only commas and question marks. this is true for foreign policy in general, but it is especially true for german foreign policy and for german history. the german history of the 20th century in which or to which my country has unfortunately contributed many aplenty chapter will not continue, will not stopping present in our active foreign policy. i myself have intensive and close contacts with israel. and every time when we visit, we go there and they come to germany i feel time and again how strongly our relationship with israel is still marked by that past. we share. but it is more than that. it also is a historical responsibility which has become especially relevant these days. you know, when we talk about refugees everywhere in germany
and in the united states, it's not only a very lively debate here in the united states. if you have 1 million refugees pour into my country within the span of a year, you do get reactions in the streets. some people are dissatisfied with politics and the actions of politicia politicians. we also get responses that are very hostile to foreigners and some even go as far as to make racist remarks. and i believe that given the fact that that is so, it is our task, especially against the backdrop of our history, to make use of the means available to politicians and political parties to stand up and to clearly stand up against racism in germany. fortunately many people in germany do so. >> i will now turn to the audience and particularly to students for questions. we have people in the audience with microphones, so once you raise your hand and i call on
you, i ask you to please identify yourself and then ask your questions. so we have one down here in the front row. >> yes. minister, thank you very much for the history lesson. it's good tomorrow for some of the things we may not have already known or forgotten. i would like to ask you a question. i stood that post on that line that you were talking about way back when in the 1960s, so i know what that was all about, but i would like to ask a question about the syria agreement. it was a very important step forward. we have won some time, but that time may be fleeting. and it seems to me that one of the most important issues now are the economic conditions that exist in that region which have created the despair and hopelessness which have led to the crisis there. there are now calls going out for a marbshall plan for the
middle east. but here in the united states it's been reflected. now that china has launched their program of a one belt and one road as they call it or new silk road into the middle east with the recent visit of president see jing ping to the middle east, would this not be a time for the world to unit together around some form of economic development program, call it is a marshall plan or not, which would create and undermine and create conditions in that region which would prevent war in the future? >> thank you for your question. >>. [ speaking in germany ] >> very right in making that point, although i tend not to use marshall plan as a heading, it's been abused, misused by so many people when we had to confront different crises in the course of the last two decades. basically, you know, it didn't quite fit the term marshall plan
for many of the situations we are confronted with the in the middle east. the difference being to be found in the frank after the second world war there was something to build on in europe. you could build on economic developments. you could build on the experience with an industrial history that had been present until the beginning of the second world war and was only destroyed in the course of the second world war and it however could only be revived with american support financial and other. where as when you look to many of the regions in the middle east, this is not the case. industrialized nation has never taken part there and in many regions of the world. unfortunately we are confronted with a situation where even basic skills, vocational training and many of the other things you need to survive have no real tradition. thus you have to begin much -- at a much more basic level, but
you're right in making that point. we have to use all the means at our disposal in order to bring about international cooperation to improve the economic status and the economic situation in the middle east. china ought to be part of that endeavor. perhaps we have when we, you know, took that step a couple years ago not being aware of what was lying in wait for us. we took the g8 format -- it brings together many of the important players today who had not figured prominently and china is one of those actors or players. but the whole truth really is that as far as syria is concerned, we are not anywhere close to where we could claim that marshall plans or similar
endeavors could actually prove effective. bier still talking military conflict here in iraq, in syria and right now also right now it doesn't make it very likely for us in the foreseeable future to be able to restore economic prosperity on the ground. in this region of the world, that is how i see it. we're talking about something quite different and that is what is at stake here. i call it forms of stabilization, take iraq, for example. we may and unfortunately public opinion did not take notice of that, but i think in the course of the last year we have been successful in acting quite successfully against so-called islamic state. it held and has since lost roughly 30% of the territory that it held roughly a year ago, islamic state. and i'm making that point
because what i'm saying here is that 30% of the territory that they used to hold has been liberated. and what we now as i see it have to do is to focus on ensuring that in these liberated areas we help create living conditions that allows the people to return to the liberated areas, instead of, you know, making them flee to other countries. and we have successful examples. one of the liberated cities in iraq is tikrit, together with a number of other countries and under the auspices of the united nations we have initiated a process of stabilization which has ensured that roughly 90% of the original population has been able to return to the liberated city of tikrit. that is one of the examples i'm talking about. you can't simply transfer it to everywhere in iraq, but syria
but hopefully we'll be successful if not in the same way, but i think in doing what we have done, we have given you a measuring rod, a yardstick to which our future action we ought to put all our strength together economic, financial, political in order to help restore these islands in iraq first and foremost and if the cessation of hostilities continue to hold also in syria. that is what i would conceive of the most urgent political economic task that has to be addressed in the next weeks and months. >> yes. >> hi, my name is thomas. you mentioned importance of domestic policy in foreign policy and here at gw you represent a united germany but in germany right now there is no unity.
on the streets there are alternative for germany on the other side, just a coalition where there are three parties. now there they're all in a clinch and they're all in conflict. what would you say is this -- we don't have a unity in germany. how is this regarding our negotiation position with the european union, for example, or turkey. [ speaking this foreign language ] >> translator: you know, it is to be taken for granted as far as democracies are concerned that at the beginning of the process you don't necessarily have unity or agreement but that it is at the end of a process or in the course of a process of discussion that you achieve that kind of agreement or unity. we're talking as far as the refugee issue is concerned about 1 million refugees that have poured into germany within one year. that's quite a substantial
number and we are discussing how we ought to deal and imagine the 1 million refugees that have already entered our country and how we continue from here in order to not see another such big influx in the course of the next year. and i think that's quite a substantial task. i think that germany will be able to cope with 1 million refugees that we have taken in the course of the last year. the question, however, is and i think you were aiming at that, is how do we succeed in ensuring that the number of refugees in the year of 2016 does not reach the same die mention and we ought to act in a humane manner in trying to strive for this subject. when i speak about this publicly, i always admonish people not to place their trust in people who steam have seemingly easy answers, as if it
were a question of throwing the switch, you know. and that would put an end to the refugee issue over night. that is not what we're talking about. and that's not the truth. the truth of the matter is that thus we have to be sincere and honest in talking to our people and our public opinion, the truth is that there will not be the one decision or the one measure to tackle the refugee issues. we will have to take a number of actions, a number of decisions at the national level as we did. we have brought two legislative packages through the german parliament, they're about to or have already been signed into law that we values to work at the european level to strive for greater unity than we have shown so far. we are anywhere close but showing european solidarity when it comes to tackling the refugee issue. there's far too many countries in europe who think that the influx of refugees could somehow
be made to bypass them, that you could land these people in italy, austria or sweden and germany. that is not what we would call a fair burden sharing. that has not yet been successfully achieved until now, but our intention is to work for that and we are working to convince our neighbors of the need to share the burden here. i think we've made headway when it comes to realizing that europe has to correct or put right one aspect that we have neglected in the past and that is to ensure the protection of our external borders, the european external borders. i do not know how far -- has been mentioned in the debate here. this is a system that the european -- some european countries have agreed to where you do away completely with internal borders controls within those european countries, people were quite happy to accept that
but at the time they forgot or negligented is probably the better term to ensure the protection of the external borders of europe and to strengthen that protection. we will have to do our home work there and i think that there will be greater readiness to tend to that than there would be readiness to bring about a fair burden sharing when it comes to relocating refugees in europe. and you made the point we will have to enter into agreements with turkey and at the same time have to make sure those agreements are upheld. a part of those agreements will be that turkey establishes the infrastructure required to provide for the refugees who come from the crisis areas in syria, so as to allow them to spend also longer periods of time in these centers. we will also have to talk to turkey about possibilities of the opening up its labor markets
in some parts limited way for the refugees. we will also talk to turkey about the need to ensure that they look after refugees in a way that the majority of the refugees who come from the crisis areas in syria have the right to stay in turkey for certain period in time thus do not have to entrust their lives to -- in order to cross the dangerous waters of the mediterranean. if turkey complies with the agreements, we will reach with turkey, then vice versa we will also have to agree on the european union being willing to resettle a certain quota of refugees every year, taking them out of the hands of turkey and resettling them in europe and in so doing achieve a kind of burden sharing, but there's no
denying one bit of truth that we're facing here when it comes to influx of migrants and refugees. we can take a certain number of national measures, we can work to improver our european performance, we can agree with -- enter into agreements with turkey and make sure that turkey complies with what it has agreed, but there's one bit of truth that continues to be valid and the people they -- that leave their country, we know that they're not simply leaving the country because they want to go to europe but they are fleeing war and the use of violence and force thus the bitter truth is that if we do not succeed in putting an end to the war and violence and the strife in the middle east, the people will continue to go on dangerous journeys using dangerous means of passage in order to flee their countries. this is not in our interest but neither is it in the interest of countries like syria. no matter how hard we may be
trying today to defuse the conflict, no matter how hard we may be trying to maintain syria as a state and to allow people to be able to survive within the syrian borders, at the end of the day, we are going to need a lot of people to rebuild the country. and in the long run it doesn't play into the hands of syria. doesn't help syria if many people leave the country, instead of staying close so as to allow them to return because if they leave the country and go far away, they won't be available for the necessary process of rebuilding. as i said, we have to tackle the root causes, at the roots of refugee issue and that is basically the core issue that we have to attend to these days. >> that caused a lot of hands to go up. right here in the front row. >> good morning. my name is mike and i'm a graduate student here at the elliott school. related to the refugee crisis what is germany doing to address
racism in its integration policies. i see as a driver of this unity both on the left and right side of the political spectrum. and that has an effect not just within germany but within the broader european union and are you working with right wing groups both politically and outside of the political sphere to incorporate them in that process [ speaking in foreign language ] >> translator: indeed. the debate about migration changes the political landscape in germany. not only in the rest of europe but in germany, too. it does van effect on those who know more about germany as is the case with you and who have been following developments there closely not only know that we are going to have three important municipal elections, local elections -- >> you can find this conversation online. we're going to lisa monaco on
u.s. strategy to combat isis. >> i want to welcome everybody to today's council on foreign relations meeting with homeland security and counterterrorism, lisa monaco. this meeting is part of the kenneth a. moscow memorial lecture on homeland security and counterterrorism series which honors the memory of kenneth a. moscow, long time cfr member who had a distinguished career in the intelligence community. further details about his life and professional accomplishments can be found in the booklet for today's meeting. i would like to extend a special welcome and thanks to keith moscow as well as members and guests of the family who are in attendance today. now it's my pleasure to introduce lisa to you. lisa besides being an old friend is a tremendous public servant. she assumed the duties of the stanlt to the president for homeland security and deputy national security adviser on march 8th, 2013. in that capacity, she advises the president on all aspects of
counterterrorism policy and strategy as well as the coordination of all hole land activities throughout the executive branch. prior that, she served as assistant attorney general for national security from 2011 to 2013. and prior to that she was the principal deputy attorney general which is an important function. before that position she was over at the fbi where she was chief of staff to director robert muller and also special counsel to him prior to that. from 2001 to 2007, lisa served as a federal prosecutor. she was appointed to the enron task force where she was co-lead trial counsel. for her work on that task force, she received the attorney general's award for exceptional service which is the highest award given by the justice department. back in 1998 to 2001 prior to being a federal prosecutor, she was counsel to janet reno,
providing advice and guidance on budget and oversight issues and prior to joining d.o.j., she clerked for honorable jane roth. she received j.d. from the university of chicago and b.a. from harvard university. i would like to welcome lisa to the stand and thank her for appearing today. [ applause ]. >> thank you so much, ken. ken was reverting to his prosecutor days when he asked -- he welcomed me to the stand. he was reverting to our common prosecutor days, the things that ken didn't tell you is that i've basically been stalking him my whole career from the u.s. attorney's office in d.c. where ken served as the u.s. attorney to the fbi where ken was also chief of staff to director muller to the department of justice where ken was also the
assistant attorney general for national security and of course he preceded me -- he is one of my predecessors in my current job. so it's good to be here. it's good to be back with an old friend. it's also very good and a real pleasure to be delivering the kenneth moscow memorial lecture. i had the opportunity to visit with keith just back stage here, and we shared a number of stories about our common roots. for those of you who aren't aware, ken moscow, in addition to being the kind of guy who liked to run with the bulls in pamp low that, was a talented cia operative. he hailed as keith and i discussed from my hometown of newton, massachusetts. and he died tragically and far too young near the summit of mount kill mon jar row. his life and his work was like that of so many other
intelligence men and women, military men and women, homeland security, diplomatic and law enforcement members. they all put their lives on the line every single day. they do so to keep our country safe. today, i want to talk about the preeminent security threat that we face, the threat of terrorism. and how isil represents a new evolution of that threat. and how we are waging an innovative campaign to counter isil and importantly its barbaric ideology. it was only three months ago that a married couple tashfeen malik and fa rouk walked opened fire on a gathering. they had assault rifles and armory with them and in their
home, including pipe bombs. they also had a 6 month old daughter who they left with their grandmother, with her grandmother before they began their murderous rampage. 14 people were killed, 22 were wounded. syed farook was an american citizen. like the recent attacks from paris to chattanooga, the san bernardino attack was a stark reminder that for all of our individu vigilance, for all of our focus, terrorism exists for americans and our allies. instability from syria to somalia provides fertile ground for extremism and sometimes tragically the attackers are home grown. but i mentioned san bernardino not just because it was the worst terrorist attack on the united states since 9/11, but because it was a starkly
different kind of attack. simply put, the terrorist threat we confront today almost 15 years after that terrible september day, the terrorist threat has evolved and has done so dramatically. what distinguishes the threat today is that it is broader, more diffuse and less predictable than at any time since 9/11. where we once spoke of higher archal networks and sleeper cells, much of the threat today is online, distributed across the globe. while we continue to see planning for sophisticated and coordinated attacks, such as those in paris, terrorism today is increasingly defined by small cells or lone actors. sometimes with little or no direct contact with terrorist organizations. those people have suck come to violence extremism.
you might call it opportunistic or do it yourself terrorism. the primary example of this new type of terrorism is the cancer of isil. originally an outgrowth of al chi da in iraq. the world has been shocked by the butchery and the depravity of these twisted fanatics. from their stronghold in syria, isil has displayed an apocalyptic ambition and an unprecedented brutality. they crucify their victims and burn alive others. they enslave women and children and teach that rape is an expression of god's will. they behead innocence and broadcast their barberism to the world. it's not only their
unconsciousable brutality that troubles us, what keeps me up at night is that this threat is unlike what we've seen before. al chi da focussed on launching catastrophic attacks against the west, the so-called far enemy. they use the internet to post grainy videos and propaganda in pdf form. isil is very different. a recent report on isil was subtitled from retweets to roka and that i think underscores the scale of our challenge. these fanatics are online and on the ground. they are at once terrorists, insurgents and bureaucrats attempting to control a territory that was at one point larger than the united kingdom. isil supporters have shown an ability to engineer high profile attacks, like blowing up a russian airliner over the sinai
peninsula, but they also direct foreign fighters to attack soft targets as they did in paris. they've deployed crude but deadly chemical weapons which pose an eminent threat to syrians. isil has distributed the threat globally through social media. they can inspire sympathetics think where and turn lost souls to soulless kill er and they do it in bangladesh or san bernardino. even as we focus on isil, we can't take our eye off of al chi da. their desire to strike at american interests and citizens warrants our continued vim lejs. the most active of these affiliates remains by american
air strikes and international pressure have thwarted aqaps, external plots and targeted their leadership. we continue to disrupt plots also from al collide's knew sa front operating in syria and we're paying for close attention to groups like al shabab and al chi da in the islamic which has bruin in brutal attacks that it, too, remains dangerous. taken together, these all form a toxic brew and the different threat, though, that isil poses is a danger that we cannot ignore nor underestimate. this is not an entity we can accommodate. so i'll say it again, today isil in all of its manifestations,
insurgent army, foreign fighter magnet, social media phenomenon, external operations codre, isil is the terrorism threat we face as a nation. against this backdrop, we are applying the lessons learned in our fight against clyde to a new and adaptive enemy, thanks to the brave, military and intelligence personnel that we have and we have disrupted we hunted down their leaders including osama bin laden and many others. core al chi da has been decimated. their remaining leaders in afghanistan and pakistan spend more time plotting to survive than plotting attacks. but we will not let up our relentless pressure. now, our success against al qaeda is the result of transformation that they have undergone under the past 14
years. after 9/11, we implemented a series of legal, structural and cultural reforms to break down the barriers that had grown up between law enforcement, the intelligence community, the military and the functions not named at the time that we now call homeland security. i've seen first at the fbi then at the department of justice and now at the white house how we brought intelligence and law enforcement tools together to confront this threat. we've adopted new normals in everything from airline travel to our interactions with partners overseas. and the courage and dedication of counterterrorism professionals across two administrations has succeeded inned a verting further large scale catastrophic attacks on our homeland. so just as we're doing with al qaeda, we will degrade and
ultimately destroy isil. we will prevail by being strong and smart, resilient and relentless and by drawing upon every aspect of american power. as always, whether confronting al qaeda, isil or another threat, we are guided in our counterterrorism efforts by several core principles. we will take every appropriate lawful actions to protect americans at home and abroad from terrorist threats. we will protect our values by continuing to conduct our counterterrorism efforts as transparently as possible with clear guidelines, strong oversight and accountability and in full accordance with the rule of law. we will build and sustain effective multilateral coalitions and work with those partners to anticipate and annihilate terrorist organizations before they require an outsized military
response. and we'll integrate our counterterrorism actions with efforts to undermine the forces that fuel terrorists like political oppression and lack of opportunity. in recent years we have taken clear and specific steps to institutionalize our counterterrorism approach, so that our military, intelligence and law enforcement communities have the tools and the authorities they need to sustain the fight for years to come. this includes putting in place adorable, legal and policy frame work to guide our counterterrorism actions consistent with our values. as it applies to isil specifically, our strategy consists of five pillars. first, we are protecting the homeland. second, we're engaging our partners. third, we're taking direct action to target isil on the battlefield. fourth, we're disrupting the factors that enable isil, like financing and foreign fighters.
and fifth, we're taking creative steps to counter the violent extremism that fuels and swells isil's ranks. our first pillar is the first part of my job title, and will always be our first responsibility as the u.s. government. protecting the homeland. everyday i meet with the president to discuss the threats that we face. whether it's terrorism, cyberattacks or deadly viruses like ebola, his first question is always, are we doing everything we can to protect the american people. he does not take his eye off that ball, ever. and i can tell you that the president and those of us on his national security team are focussed everyday on preventing future attacks at home and abroad, whether the terrorists are home grown, isil directed or isil inspired. destroying isil starts with going after isil abroad. and as our second pillar
recognizes, we cannot do it alone. the united states built a broad coalition of 66 international partners, we're sharing vital intelligence, training, equipping and empowering partners on partners in syria ad iraq and together with our partners we're working through a political process to diminish the terrible violence in syria. the current cessation of hostilities is an opportunity to move that process forward even as we continue to isolate and hammer isil. and we are hammering isil on the ground through direct action or third pillar. in iraq and syria, coalition forces have conducted almost 11,000 precision air strikes. today, these terrorists have lost about 40% of the territory that they once controlled in iraq and 20% in syria. our operations are keeping isil guessing for fear of capture or feeling the full weight of the mightiest military on earth.
we estimate that our coalition is taking out key, one to two key isil leaders every day and that includes isil's second in command. their finance chief and mohamed emwazi otherwise known as jihadi john who has brutally murdered americans and others. of course, isil can't survive without the fighters and the finances that sustain its barbaric enterprise and that's pillar number four and it's why we're working with partners to slow the flow of foreign fighters in and out of iraq and syria. isil has lost 10,000 or more front-line fighters. at the same time we're choking off isil'sable to fund its terror. we're striking their oil infrastructure and making it hard for them to extort local populations. inflation is up in
isil-controlled areas and if you're an isil fighter today, chances are you're being paid far less than you were last year. there must be no safe haven for these killers. we continue to go after isil wherever it tries to take root. in libya, for instance, we've removed isil's leader there and recently struck an isil training camp. in all of these strikes our operators do everything in their power to avoid civilian casualties and in keeping with the president's commitment to transparenc transparency, i can announce today that in the coming weeks the administration will publicly release an assessment of combatant and non-combatant casualties resulting from strikes taken outside areas of active hostilities since 2009. going forward, these figures will be provided annually. we know that not only is greater
transparency the right thing to do. it is the best way to maintain the legitimacy of the counter terrorism actions and the broad support of our allies. but no amount of air strikes and no amount of military power alone can defeat these fanatics and their warped world view once and for all. our approach initially tailored after 9/11 to topple a terrorist network that operated more like a corporation than secret army, our world is adapting to face the centralized threat. the only lasting answer to hateful ideologies are better ideas. so even as we target isil's men and its money, our final pillar recognizes that we must also confront and defeat their twisted message. we focus this front, as well, because isil is trying to occupy
digital territory just as it is trying to occupy physical territory. they're on facebook. they're on twitter. they're on youtube. there are something like 90,000 twitter accounts associated with or sympathetic to isil. sometimes each with 50,000 followers. last year isil produced 7,000 slick pieces of propaganda disseminated by 43 distinct isil media offices. now, i remember only a few years ago the counter terrorism community was worried about an al qaeda affiliate distributing an online magazine via a pdf file. that, frankly, looks like the 8-track tape version of what we're seeing now. with the click of a mouse these internet-savvy extremists are poisoning the minds of people an ocean away. many of these recruits have been middle class, seemingly well
adjusted in their communities and of course, the fbi has investigated isil-inspired suspects in all 50 states. so this is not just an american or western problem, though. we've seen from nigeria to indonesia, this is indeed a global problem. with allies and with our partners we're working hard to expose isil's true nature, to highlight their hyprocrisy and it can't be underscored enough. a group that claims to be defending muslims is killing countless innocent muslim men, women and children, but we know that the u.s. government is often not the best or most compelling voice for this message. that's why we are working to enable partners around the globe and in our communities who can convincingly speak against extremism. we've seen the united arab emirates, saudi arabia and malaysia all stepping up their
efforts to discredit isil's claim to represent islam. the state department has created a new global engagement center which will amplify and empower the voices of our international partners from religious leaders to isil defectors themselves and are countering violent extremism task force with the homeland security and justice is coordinating our efforts across the u.s. government. ultimately, though, one of our most potent weapons against terrorist narratives is going to be the power of our ideas and the innovation that has made this country so great. for the past year, we've been working to partner with some of our nation's most imaginative companies. tech firms like facebook, google, youtube and instagram have all made strides removing terrorist content that vile eight their own terms of service and denying isil a digital safe
haven. already, twitter has suspended roughly 125,000 isil-linked accounts in just the past six months. i want to commend these companies for the action they've taken to date in removing isil's murderering online message. our engagement with silicon val owe counters i'll ilonline has been more positive than you might think from reading the lightest news. last year i went to silicon valley to initiate the white house's focus innovating our way through this problem. i sat down with key tech leaders, social entrepreneurs, philanthropists and students at the stanford d. school, their design school. it may seem an odd choice for someone like myself who has spent two decades in government, but the setting was instructive and almost as important as the
discussions themselves, in a space that was more akin to an ad agency or a creative design studio, we brainstormed how to prevent isil's use of technology to recruit, to radicalize and mobilize and i've held similar sessions in boston and in new york. and just a few weeks ago, we brought these worlds together madison avenue, silicon valley and even hollywood along with ngos and civil society. the goal is to develop private sector approaches for countering violent extremism online. we call this the madison valleywood project. these companies are exploring cutting-edge ways to amplify credible voices to counter isil's destructive narrative and they're just getting started, but we think that the collaboration that could come from this project could be quite promising, but this can't be a top-down effort. it's got to come from empowered
voices like those i heard last september at a global youth summit in new york that was co-hosted by the white house and the counter extremism project. hundreds of young people gathered from 45 countries. they all came together to build digital platforms all designed to help keep young people off the dark road to radicalization and they came up with a host of ideas from supporting aspiring entrepreneurs to creating anti-extremist rap music, but even with all these creative and determined efforts. even with the constant vigilance that we apply, there will always be those who try to exploit our openness, to cause chaos and to cause destruction. homeland security has got to be more than taking off our shoes when we fly. whether it's it's a tornado, we have to rebuild when we get knocked down and we've got to
embrace one very simple truth that a hateful and barbarous group like isil will not overcome us as americans. a couple of months ago i gathered at arlington cemetery with the families of those who were lost in the bombing of panam 103 over lockerbie, scotland. for more than 25 years the families of the fallen have mourned their friends and their family but they've also celebrated countless wed, and births. they lost loved ones, but they never lost hope and that's what makes this country stronger than any terrorist bomb or bullet. we is it in san bernardino accidein the employee who returned to work in januaryic shahhen, but determined and the woman who remembered to bow her head to remembee